The Peer Review Process

Initial acceptance and peer review process details:
The manuscripts received are reviewed by the Editors-In-Chief and the Editors, which prepare the corresponding reports for the acceptance or rejection of the article, based on the quality, scope, scientific validity, importance and authenticity of the subject, relation to previous studies, the suitability of the use of references, citations and the suitability of the journal's submission rules.

The manuscript is checked both if the article meets the formal criteria as was stated above, respecting the writing rules and being formatted according to Chicago style, by technical editors. Then the technical editor submits a report to the editor-in-chief regarding the article that is checked. S/he makes a preliminary decision as to whether to refer to the editors or not. The editor in chief can get help from the experts in the Editorial Board while taking this decision. It takes 
2 - 4 weeks mostly for an initial decision of the Editors-In-Chief. 

The review process:

  • In the evaluation process of the articles submitted to the PERR, both the authors and the referees' identities are reserved (double-blind peer-review process). Upon approval from the Editor-in-Chief, Editors direct the manuscript to at least 2 reviewers within the related field.
  • Reviewers are selected with the assurance of quality. They are not affiliated with the same university/research institution as the author of the article. Editors have the responsibility of sending manuscripts to the Reviewers working within the related fields. Each reviewer is asked to evaluate the scientific validity and authenticity of the article and to emphasize its strengths or weaknesses.
  • Reviewers submit a review report form by filling it on the website, through a recommendation of accepting the article, requiring revision or declining the manuscript. This process takes about 6 weeks.
  • Reviewers reports play a decisive role in the refusal or acceptance of articles, but the final decision on the publication of an article belongs to the Editor. However, if the reviewer does not send any feedback, a reminder is sent and an additional 2 weeks period is given. When this period is exceeded again and no response is received, a final reminder is made and a 1 last additional week is given. If no feedback or response is received, a new reviewer is appointed and the same process is run.
  • Editors are responsible for following this process closely. In case of discrepancy, the Editors will ask for a review of the third Reviewer. This process takes another 4 weeks mostly.  
  • The evaluation process takes an average of 12 weeks. In some cases, journal Editors require Editorial Board members to see the articles and evaluate based on its’ quality to be published, according to their fields of expertise. The Author(s), who is/are required to make corrections for the article, must complete these revisions within the requested time period. Then, the decision is sent to the Author/s. If Reviewers have asked the author/s to make revisions, the authors are expected to make necessary changes in 4 weeks mostly. Authors should follow these recommendations of the reviewers generally. However, if they have objections in various cases, they must forward them in writing to the editor.
  • The Author must submit a new version of the article with all necessary changes (marked in a different colour) included via the PERR website. If a major revision is given, the revised article is sent to the same Reviewers for the second round. However, if the required revision is not minor, the Editors check the manuscript whether corrections or change requests have been fulfilled or not.
  • When an article is formally accepted, the estimated publication date is reported to the author(s) based on the number of articles waiting to be published. Articles are published in order, based on acceptance dates. Accepted articles are sent to the author(s) about two weeks prior to the publishing, for correction and publishing approval. Options mentioned in the review report form as follows: 


Accept submission (It is ready to go to copyediting as is).
Revisions required (It requires minor changes that can be reviewed and accepted by the editors. To be decided after implemented revisions are checked by the Editorial Board).
Resubmit for review (Major revision. it requires major changes and another/second round of peer review).
Resubmit elsewhere (It doesn’t seem like a good fit for the focus and scope of this journal).
Decline Submission (It has too many weakness to ever be accepted).



Quality assurance: The entire peer-review process depends on the scientific reputation, professionalism and voluntary participation of invited reviewers from social sciences in various cultural backgrounds. 

Proofreading. The authors themselves will ensure proofreading within the period indicated by the Editorial Board. In the case where the author does not respond within a certain period, the Editorial Board will not carry out the revision.

Responsibility: PERR (Psycho-Educational Research Reviews) and London Academic Publishing are not responsible for the ideas and opinions expressed in the published works. The full responsibility is on the author's side. This remark is also mentioned in the Copyright Agreement for Authors section on the website. 



The reviews are prepared on this review form.